"Fake 'Facts' Were Presented to the Supreme Court" in web design case

[Independent thinker]

Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.

So, you're saying that if this lady had started her website business and refused service to gays, no gays would have ever sued her?

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Lastamender]

Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.

Reality is the SCOTUS's decision.

 

[candycorn]

why would you want to purchase something from someone that didnt like you??

wouldnt you want to know they dont like you??

You think everyone who sells you something likes you?

 

[candycorn]

So, you're saying that if this lady had started her website business and refused service to gays, no gays would have ever sued her?

Quote me.

 

[progressive hunter]

You think everyone who sells you something likes you?

never thought about it,, but if I knew they did I sure wouldnt force them to make me something,, especially something to eat,,

 

[Independent thinker]

Quote me.

Quote what? I asked you a question.

 

[whitehall]

The left didn't seem too concerned when the weaponized DOJ submitted fake documents to undermine the Trump administration.

 

[candycorn]

Quote what? I asked you a question.

you're saying that...

Quote me saying what you've dreamed I said.

 

[Independent thinker]

Quote me saying what you've dreamed I said.

I asked you a question. There is nothing to quote. Just answer the question.

 

[Lesh]

So, you're saying that if this lady had started her website business and refused service to gays, no gays would have ever sued her?

No gays DID though. In fact the person she claimed had done that wasn’t gay and had not asked for her services so…

 

[surada]

it appears the case was another hoax by the left,,
its getting harder to trust anyone these days,,

Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court

Christian website designer says she received email request from same-sex couple but ‘author’ says he did not send it – and is not gay

www.theguardian.com

Wow. They faked the whole thing.

 

[struth]

Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.

i’m it was an actual court case

 

[Independent thinker]

No gays DID though. In fact the person she claimed had done that wasn’t gay and had not asked for her services so…

She and many others wanted to find out ahead of time if she was going to be sued or not. If she was going to be sued, then she would not do the business. It would be stupid to open your business and then find out after the fact that someone is suing you for millions of dollars.

 

[Lesh]

She and many others wanted to find out ahead of time if she was going to be sued or not. If she was going to be sued, then she would not do the business. It would be stupid to open your business and then find out after the fact that someone is suing you for millions of dollars.

She ficking lied and the Court does not “normally” take hypothetical cases.. until this court

 

[Independent thinker]

She ficking lied and the Court does not “normally” take hypothetical cases.. until this court

It is irrelevant. The court made a decision on something that would have absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it, would have come up. You can't post here with a straight face and say this woman would have never been sued by gays wanting her to design a gay wedding website. Of course they would have.

 

[progressive hunter]

She ficking lied and the Court does not “normally” take hypothetical cases.. until this court

just be thankful we got a bad law off the books before anyone suffered because of it,,

its a win win for the country,,

 

[martybegan]

Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.

What theoretical?

1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites?
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding site request.

 

[Papageorgio]

She ficking lied and the Court does not “normally” take hypothetical cases.. until this court

So did the district court the state court of appeals, the state supreme court the US appellate court. The dissenting opinion did not even mention whether the case was legit or not, so apparently your opinion wasn't worth mentioning by the three judges.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

And it legalizes discrimination which all right wing loons love and support.

Don't businesses already have a right to 'discriminate' based on any number of factors?